You'll love this story: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/15/...mediately/

---

Isn't that the Scam Society?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Loved the book. Very influential.

---

So they conflate a scammer, with Anarchists, with an actual political ethos and then say "Ha! Ha! Stupid Libertatianism don't work!!!!"

 

Yeah, I'm convinced.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Funny the smallest and dumbest attempts to establish a libertarian state fails and libertarianism would NEVER work. Yet socialism fails on massive scales such as Venezuela and Greece yet they'll never say socialism is flawed just the wrong peoples where In charge.

---

Loved the book. Very influential.

 

Did you actually read it?  I was thinking of reading it, but I read some reviews that said it is very long and very boring. 

---

Did you actually read it? I was thinking of reading it, but I read some reviews that said it is very long and very boring.

I know it's extremely long I plan on reading it one day but I just don't have that kind of time right now.

---

You'll love this story: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/15/...mediately/

 

The story in the link is more an indictment of people's naivete than an indictment of libertarianism.  Those people got scammed.  That's the story. 

 

On the subject of libertarianism, libertarians like to say we have an over-regulated society and we need fewer regulations.   My opinion is, why would anyone want an unregulated society when they have a neighbor?   The regulations people rail against are not just regulations over what you can do, but also over what your neighbor can do.   I don't want my neighbors to own farm animals in their back yard.   I don't want them drilling for oil or mining for minerals.  And I don't want people dumping pollutants in the river.   So I want some regulations.  

 

And if anyone thinks we are over-regulated, the logical first step would be for them to name specific regulations they want to repeal.  Every time I talk to someone who says we are over-regulated, I ask that question.  Which specific regulations would you want to repeal?   I'm sure there are thousands that I would be willing to repeal, but no one can ever seem to name any.  And without naming any specific unnecessary regulations, saying we are over-regulated is just a bunch of empty rhetoric.    

 

Besides, I would ask the libertarian, wouild you rather live in Switzerland or Taiwan?   Taiwan offers the kind of unregulated freedom libertarians covet.   Switzerland is heavily regulated.  I've been to both places.   I would much rather live in Switzerland,  because Taiwan, much as I love it, is messy and polluted. 

---

The story in the link is more an indictment of people's naivete than an indictment of libertarianism. Those people got scammed. That's the story.


On the subject of libertarianism, libertarians like to say we have an over-regulated society and we need fewer regulations. My opinion is, why would anyone want an unregulated society when they have a neighbor? The regulations people rail against are not just regulations over what you can do, but also over what your neighbor can do. I don't want my neighbors to own farm animals in their back yard. I don't want them drilling for oil or mining for minerals. And I don't want people dumping pollutants in the river. So I want some regulations.


And if anyone thinks we are over-regulated, the logical first step would be for them to name specific regulations they want to repeal. Every time I talk to someone who says we are over-regulated, I ask that question. Which specific regulations would you want to repeal? I'm sure there are thousands that I would be willing to repeal, but no one can ever seem to name any. And without naming any specific unnecessary regulations, saying we are over-regulated is just a bunch of empty rhetoric.


Besides, I would ask the libertarian, wouild you rather live in Switzerland or Taiwan? Taiwan offers the kind of unregulated freedom libertarians covet. Switzerland is heavily regulated. I've been to both places. I would much rather live in Switzerland, because Taiwan, much as I love it, is messy and polluted.

For starters libertarians for the most part have problems with regulation at the federal level. You don't want farm animals fine live in a suburban community with those regulations but someone somewhere might want the farm animals so they can live in areas without those regulations.


For starters I have a problem with federal regulations in education, I have a problem with federal regulations prohibiting private acts such as consumption of substances, prostitution, marriage regulations between adults, regulations demanding how private business operates and who they serve, and so on.


People tend to mix libertarians with anarchist and while some of our beliefs overlap with anarchist principles we are not anarchist. We for the most part preach the more local you can create government and regulations the more effective and less oppressive they tend to be.


If you haven't talked to anyone that has a problem with specific regulations you probably haven't talked to any libertarians people don't accidentally identify third party they tend to be very specific.

---

For starters libertarians for the most part have problems with regulation at the federal level. You don't want farm animals fine live in a suburban community with those regulations but someone somewhere might want the farm animals so they can live in areas without those regulations.


For starters I have a problem with federal regulations in education, I have a problem with federal regulations prohibiting private acts such as consumption of substances, prostitution, marriage regulations between adults, regulations demanding how private business operates and who they serve, and so on.


People tend to mix libertarians with anarchist and while some of our beliefs overlap with anarchist principles we are not anarchist. We for the most part preach the more local you can create government and regulations the more effective and less oppressive they tend to be.


If you haven't talked to anyone that has a problem with specific regulations you probably haven't talked to any libertarians people don't accidentally identify third party they tend to be very specific.

 

It's funny, you say you are a libertarian, and I say I am not, but in actuality, we are very similar.   We both believe in some regulations, and we both would like to repeal some regulations.  The only disagreement would be over which ones to keep and which ones to repeal. 

 

As far as private consumption of various substances, for example, I have no problem with people smoking pot, but I don't want them smoking pot and then trying to drive, because that's where their freedom infringes on my freedom.   And I don't want to repeal regulations against the selling of methedrine, because meth addicts commit all sorts of crimes. 

 

Prostitution and marriage relations between adults, you and I probably agree on that.  I am for freedom. 

 

But as far as how private businesses operate and whom they serve, the problem is, again, where does the exercise of freedom by that business owner infringe on the freedom of others in the community?   Freedom to pollute the river?  Freedom to use loudspeakers to advertise his business at 3 AM?  Freedom to put dirt and chemicals in the peanut butter he manufactures?  You need to be more specific as to what regulations you would want to repeal from private businesses.  

 

As I said, even though you say you are a libertarian and I say I am not, we are probably not that far apart.  We both want as much freedom as we can have without infringing on the freedom of others.   The problem is in the specifics. 

---

As for private business I agree regulations on how they operate are needed but I advocate those regulations come from more local governments. Pollution is probably the exception but hours of operations, types of business and equal access are all local issues. Take the civil rights act for example. Personally I hate all discrimination as a first generation American with Hispanic heritage I've faced it first hand. But I don't support legislation that says from a federal level a private business has to serve everyone or no one. If some cake factory doesn't want to make gay themed cakes that's their choice. If a restaurant wants to serve only whites or blacks or Hispanics that's their choice. However local towns or even states are within their jurisdiction to say operating in our territory requires you serve x people under y circumstances.



As for substances I'm for decriminalizing all narcotics. Laws can still be established against public intoxication or using narcotics while operating a vehicle on public roads. But what I do in the privacy of my home is my business no matter how harmful to myself.


All this freedom also requires more responsibility an that's where you tend to lose people. Smoke all the dope you wants, call a hooker every night but your responsible for your own health care, income, housing and food. It's why freedom is tied directly to ending federal welfare. Really ideally ending all public funded welfare but ending it at the federal level is a good start.

---

As for private business I agree regulations on how they operate are needed but I advocate those regulations come from more local governments. Pollution is probably the exception but hours of operations, types of business and equal access are all local issues. Take the civil rights act for example. Personally I hate all discrimination as a first generation American with Hispanic heritage I've faced it first hand. But I don't support legislation that says from a federal level a private business has to serve everyone or no one. If some cake factory doesn't want to make gay themed cakes that's their choice. If a restaurant wants to serve only whites or blacks or Hispanics that's their choice. However local towns or even states are within their jurisdiction to say operating in our territory requires you serve x people under y circumstances.



As for substances I'm for decriminalizing all narcotics. Laws can still be established against public intoxication or using narcotics while operating a vehicle on public roads. But what I do in the privacy of my home is my business no matter how harmful to myself.


All this freedom also requires more responsibility an that's where you tend to lose people. Smoke all the dope you wants, call a hooker every night but your responsible for your own health care, income, housing and food. It's why freedom is tied directly to ending federal welfare. Really ideally ending all public funded welfare but ending it at the federal level is a good start.

 

You can't just go part way with some of what you advocate.  If you decriminalize all drugs, then you have people showing up at hospitals needing treatment.   And there is a law currently that says hospitals cannot turn people away.  Which means, the hospital has to take them, and pass the cost on to other people or go bankrupt.   So I wind up paying for their treatment either through higher hospital bills or higher taxes to pay for their health insurance.   Now, on the other hand, if you repeal the law that says hospitals cannot turn people away, and allow hospitals to reject patients who cannot afford their treatment, then you could have people lying on the sidewalk in front of hospitals or dying in the street.   This is one problem with legalizing addictive drugs.   Not pot, but meth, heroin, oxy.   Can I say, "if you become addicted, that's your problem, not mine"?   Unfortunately it will be my problem.  And at that point, one could reasonably say, no to legalizing sale and consumption of the more dangerous drugs.   I don't want people lying in the street untreated, and I don't want people begging me for help.   So it's not that easy to just say, let's legalize all drugs. 

 

Gotta go to the game.  Go Jags. 

---

You can't just go part way with some of what you advocate. If you decriminalize all drugs, then you have people showing up at hospitals needing treatment. And there is a law currently that says hospitals cannot turn people away. Which means, the hospital has to take them, and pass the cost on to other people or go bankrupt. So I wind up paying for their treatment either through higher hospital bills or higher taxes to pay for their health insurance. Now, on the other hand, if you repeal the law that says hospitals cannot turn people away, and allow hospitals to reject patients who cannot afford their treatment, then you could have people lying on the sidewalk in front of hospitals or dying in the street. This is one problem with legalizing addictive drugs. Not pot, but meth, heroin, oxy. Can I say, "if you become addicted, that's your problem, not mine"? Unfortunately it will be my problem. And at that point, one could reasonably say, no to legalizing sale and consumption of the more dangerous drugs. I don't want people lying in the street untreated, and I don't want people begging me for help. So it's not that easy to just say, let's legalize all drugs.


Gotta go to the game. Go Jags.

That's assuming prohibition prevents use. The same people that use today will use under decriminalization. However people with the good sense not to use meth won't suddenly run out and find it because there's no legal recourse. Legality doesn't equate common sense.

---

That's assuming prohibition prevents use. The same people that use today will use under decriminalization. However people with the good sense not to use meth won't suddenly run out and find it because there's no legal recourse. Legality doesn't equate common sense.

 

I think legality would mean greater availability, which would mean more opportunity for people to use it and get addicted.   It would also mean recovering addicts would be confronted with it a lot more.   There are a million people who have dealt with addictions to coke or meth or opiates, and the first line of defense is to sever all ties with their dealer and other people who use it, and legalization would bring it right back out into the open where they would be confronted with it on a daily basis. 

 

I know legality wouldn't negate common sense, but you have to think of the millions of people who are on the fence, struggling with these urges on a daily basis. 

---

You'd see some uptick in usage if decriminalization place but certainly not enough to overload the health care system anymore than it already is. That was my point, the argument about having to pay for their medical is pointless you already pay for it under the current system but you also pay to house, educate, feed, and process them under the judicial system and incarceration.

---

The story in the link is more an indictment of people's naivete than an indictment of libertarianism.  Those people got scammed.  That's the story. 

 

On the subject of libertarianism, libertarians like to say we have an over-regulated society and we need fewer regulations.   My opinion is, why would anyone want an unregulated society when they have a neighbor?   The regulations people rail against are not just regulations over what you can do, but also over what your neighbor can do.   I don't want my neighbors to own farm animals in their back yard.   I don't want them drilling for oil or mining for minerals.  And I don't want people dumping pollutants in the river.   So I want some regulations.  

 

And if anyone thinks we are over-regulated, the logical first step would be for them to name specific regulations they want to repeal.  Every time I talk to someone who says we are over-regulated, I ask that question.  Which specific regulations would you want to repeal?   I'm sure there are thousands that I would be willing to repeal, but no one can ever seem to name any.  And without naming any specific unnecessary regulations, saying we are over-regulated is just a bunch of empty rhetoric.    

 

Besides, I would ask the libertarian, wouild you rather live in Switzerland or Taiwan?   Taiwan offers the kind of unregulated freedom libertarians covet.   Switzerland is heavily regulated.  I've been to both places.   I would much rather live in Switzerland,  because Taiwan, much as I love it, is messy and polluted. 

 

The story isn't an indictment of people's naivete, it's an indictment of the inherent contradiction of their beliefs and desires. Note how the first thing these people do when they find out they're as naive as their beliefs system is run to big government to try to sue for their money back.

 

In a truly libertarian society there wouldn't be any court, recourse, or way to get your money back. It would be your personal responsibility to wisely exercise your liberty, and investing poorly is no one else's problem.

 

Now, I'll post before Eric or flsprtsgod come to post about how protecting rich people from being scammed is one of the lone legitimate functions of government. A convenient way of saying, "I don't want libertarianism, I want socialism in my favor and against my neighbor's favor."

---

The story isn't an indictment of people's naivete, it's an indictment of the inherent contradiction of their beliefs and desires. Note how the first thing these people do when they find out they're as naive as their beliefs system is run to big government to try to sue for their money back.

 

In a truly libertarian society there wouldn't be any court, recourse, or way to get your money back. It would be your personal responsibility to wisely exercise your liberty, and investing poorly is no one else's problem.

 

Now, I'll post before Eric or flsprtsgod come to post about how protecting rich people from being scammed is one of the lone legitimate functions of government. A convenient way of saying, "I don't want libertarianism, I want socialism in my favor and against my neighbor's favor."

 

Blah, blah, blah. If you have to so mischaracterize our position then you just show your bias.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Blah, blah, blah. If you have to so mischaracterize our position then you just show your bias.

Translation: He cut off my position before I could even take it! I guess I'll just have to attack him as biased instead of forming an argument successfully refuting his point.

---

The story isn't an indictment of people's naivete, it's an indictment of the inherent contradiction of their beliefs and desires. Note how the first thing these people do when they find out they're as naive as their beliefs system is run to big government to try to sue for their money back.

 

In a truly libertarian society there wouldn't be any court, recourse, or way to get your money back. It would be your personal responsibility to wisely exercise your liberty, and investing poorly is no one else's problem.

 

Now, I'll post before Eric or flsprtsgod come to post about how protecting rich people from being scammed is one of the lone legitimate functions of government. A convenient way of saying, "I don't want libertarianism, I want socialism in my favor and against my neighbor's favor."

 



 

That's a new way to describe governments role of protecting property and life.

 

Once again you fail to know anything about a "libertarian society" no libertarian advocates abolishing courts and the judicial system.

---

Translation: He cut off my position before I could even take it! I guess I'll just have to attack him as biased instead of forming an argument successfully refuting his point.

 

Nope, there's just no point in talking with a guy who can't tell the difference between anarchists and libertarians. You constantly do it, it's intentional, and it's a waste of my time to bother with you.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato